Allow for ordering of communication channels

[joostschouppe]

I'm not sure what the logic to ordering the channels is in the ID user interface right now, but I would prefer it his could be controlled by the local community. In the case of Belgium, the Facebook group is on top, but that's really the least lively channel we offer. With imagery, we have a "best imagery source" thing; maybe we could mark one of the channels as "most active for this area" and show that on top.
(I would understand if we want to keep this out of scope, because it opens the door to so many discussions. Having them show randomized would be good too I think.)

[bhousel]

Oh good suggestion @joostschouppe and definitely in scope. I wanted to open this as an issue and forgot to.

Agree we should add a sort parameter or some way to let local communities control the order.

For comparison the current code in iD just hardcodes some numbers (so I could ship something quickly) and I would love to get rid of it:

    // All else being equal, rank more "social" communities higher
    // (anything not in this list receives no adjustment)
    var COMMUNITYRANK = {
        'meetup': +5,
        'slack': +4,
        'facebook': +3,
        'reddit': +2,
        'forum': -2,
        'mailinglist': -3,
        'irc': -4
    };

[govvin]

Has this been implemented? How does it work?

[bhousel]

Has this been implemented? How does it work?

Nothing implemented yet..

[andrewharvey]

Weighted shuffling

I think a fixed predictable sorting which can be customised for each region is best. In my opinion the channels with the most engagement would be at the top, and the less frequently used ones at the bottom, so we help direct people to where there is more activity and hence best likely to get help.

[Komzpa]

Can this be resolved by having something like reach_estimate with some number of people reachable via this channel?

[bhousel]

I was thinking we would just add a generic sounding field like order so local communities can order the entries according to whatever criteria they want to use.

[Komzpa]

This will not work well - you can do that arbitrarily within one shape, but for two overlapping ones you have to provide a common criteria. Same holds for global communities: are they above (as there are more people) or below (as they are less specific) local ones?

[bhousel]

you can do that arbitrarily within one shape, but for two overlapping ones you have to provide a common criteria. Same holds for global communities: are they above (as there are more people) or below (as they are less specific) local ones?

Smaller shapes (ie more local) are already sorted higher .. this issue is just about controlling the sort order for resources that use the same shape.

[joostschouppe]

reach_estimate might not be the best measure. For example, a chat room might be only 20 people, but where all the conversation is happening. While the mailing list might have 200 members but have only one message every other month or two. I think the community-filled 'order' is probably best. And indeed, starting with the most local channels first.

[bhousel]

I was thinking we would just add a generic sounding field like order so local communities can order the entries according to whatever criteria they want to use.

☝️ I did this, and updated the CONTRIBUTING document with instructions..
Here is the documentation for the new property:

• order - (optional) When several resources with same geography are present, this adjusts the display order (default = 0, higher numbers display more prominently)